I understand and appreciate the argument to protect every individual's rights, but if you can have an exemption for a threat to the woman's life, why not one for rape/incest? Actual rape/incest is hugely traumatizing, and a woman should not have to bear the child of her rapist. Being the victim of rape is not something she should have to take responsibility for. That's so evil. I'm surprised by the upsurge of these laws. And it's not just women, but girls are at risk, too, as there have got to be many underage children needing protection from this. Puberty is when girls are still developing and growing -- they're not physiologically prepared to bear children.
view the rest of the comments →
Sheetz ago
Give the child up for adoption. The issue is that the mother will have to go through labor? This is a life.
Rotteuxx ago
Would the state be responsible for all costs relating to the pregnancy and birth if they force a rape victim to bring it to term ?
Sheetz ago
State will make more money off their taxes than any cost of birth. Especially if you consider only the real cost of delivering a baby. They'll probably profit more off then birth alone than it would cost. Not as much as selling off the baby parts mind you
Rotteuxx ago
That's a non answer.
Let me rephrase, in a society that values life above all else, would the state that forces a rape victim to carry the baby to term be fiscally responsible for her up to the time of birth and possible subsequent counselling required ?
drj2 ago
The state would be. And then a baby is grown up in the failed foster system and turns out to be a drain on society.
Rotteuxx ago
Ding ding ding !
No exemptions from abortion laws mean a stronger welfare state.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/SBBHTantrums submission by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#46941) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@Rotteuxx: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
IdoubtIt2 ago
Then how on earth did we ever get along before abortion and welfare were a thing. You act like humans didn’t exist prior to 1960.
Rotteuxx ago
Ok
That's an extremely retarded reply considering the context but... ok.
IdoubtIt2 ago
How so? Abortion wasn’t a thing in any real sense before Roe v Wade, really. They happened but were rare and often resulted in terrible complications if not death. The welfare state that you refer to didn’t exist until about the same time abortion was legalized. So how does your logic follow. If I were an ignoramus in equal measure to you, I’d say welfare seems to increase abortion rates not the opposite as you claim. Of course, I think both claims are absolutely absurd.
What is also absurd is the notion that abortion should be allowed because of increased welfare usage (which you have not proved in any way). So, murder is justified because of money? If so, where do you draw that line?